I just found a free PDF of this book online and wondered if anyone has read it or heard if any school of buddhism is well represented by the author.

The good muslim teachers of my local masjid could use a source of buddhist information, written by one of their own brothers, for understanding and communicating with non-believers. Dr. Zakir Naik, Sheikh Abdur Raheem Green, and Harun Yahya are complicating harmony between our traditions by apparently wanting to misunderstand buddhism. Insha'allah, they will be guided to the straight path, the middle way, of Islam..

Hi, lojong,I think you will have to read it yourself because my (fairly thorough) gooooogle search suggests it sank without trace when it emerged - no reviews or comments, not available on Amazon or any of the other major bookstores, etc. When you look for something and come up with results in the single digits you're looking for something really obscure.

Gregkavarnos: "Because (historically) discussions related to Islam and Buddhism always lead to the same outcome this thread is now locked."

Could someone please point me to those discussions on this site that were locked, so I can try to figure out why the ending of my thread is so utterly unrelated to the buddhist teachings I was asking about -- the ones with an introduction by HH Dalai Lama.

Greg's right: discussions on this topic usually do not end well. However, I'm reopening this thread (perhaps temporarily, depending on how the discussion goes) to allow lojong1 to get his/her questions answered.

Jikan wrote:Greg's right: discussions on this topic usually do not end well. However, I'm reopening this thread (perhaps temporarily, depending on how the discussion goes) to allow lojong1 to get his/her questions answered.

While the thread may not end well, as practicing Buddhists it probably is still a good thing to respond to what is in the moment and not to what may (or even inevitably will) happen. I look forward to some interesting stuff, as the links above have already provided.

My personal experience is that I arrived to my practice of the Buddhadhamma via Sufism, because of what I see as their "essential" teachings. Of course I am not referring to what most call "Buddhism", or the Arab nationalism most call "Islam". I am speaking to the "essence" of both, which reaches beyond the organized, institutionalized, dogmatic traditions.I have practiced [and continue to practice] Islam for quite some time and see absolutely no conflict between either dhamma. While on retreat I participated in a dhamma discussion on "touching the roots of our western traditions", which included talks on how practitioners of Christianity, Judaism and Islam could resolve their practice of the Buddhadhamma alongside the spiritual traditions passed on to them from their ancestors. Thinking that we must do it "this way" or that way" is very much the product of dichotomous thinking and attachment to dualism.I have been told by my teacher that the practice of the Buddhadhamma will, in fact, strengthen the practice of whatever spiritual tradition you practice because it allows you to get to the root/essence of the tradition. I find this to be very true.Those who can see the similarities of Christianity and the Buddhadhamma, but cannot do so with Islam are falling into a dogmatic, clinging trap. Judaism, Christiantity, and Islam are all Abrahamic/Semitic traditions and essentially teach the same principles. The practices often differ, but that holds true for so-called Buddhism as well, or we would not feel a need to divide a forum into Theravada, Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc.Islam has a practice called Zhikr, which is essentially the practice of mindfulness and can also be directly related to vipassana. When reciting the Quran, paying attention to the various pauses indicated by punctuation marks, one is engaging in a form of "fully aware breathing" prescribed by Shakyamuni Buddha in the Anapanasati sutra. Compassion IS Rahman, and zakat is charity, these are also commonalities they share. If we put our minds to it we could probably point out other similarities.There are many ways to describe and approach reality, the idea that any tradition or spiritual practice is the ONLY way is somewhat ludicrous [my attempt to be polite because it is totally ludicrous! ]. So, if we allow ourselves to get past the disturbing emotions or cognitive obscuration we have attached to any particular dhamma that we do not see as our own, I really don't see why we cannot discuss ANY topic and maintain decorum.

"True seeing is called transcendence;False seeing is worldliness:Set aside both right and wrong,And the nature of enlightenment is clear."